-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14.6k
Reapply PR/87550 #94625
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
Merged
Reapply PR/87550 #94625
Changes from 4 commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
bbaa8ef
Reapply "[lldb][lldb-dap] Cleanup breakpoint filters." (#93739)
oontvoo 33edc9e
removed assertion checks
oontvoo e16b56a
typo
oontvoo 92d09cd
added ns
oontvoo 38cd558
wrap the population of exception_breakpoints in a call_once for safety
oontvoo 9df5a14
remove redundant check
oontvoo File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You could avoid having to duplicate this check (and the comment) by hoisting it into
PopulateExceptionBreakpoints
and call it unconditionally here.You can keep an assert to convey the precondition is that
PopulateExceptionBreakpoints
must have been called:I'm not familiar enough with the code to know if there's a risk of racing on that variable, but if I was implementing the lazy approach, I would wrap the thing into a
call_once
. If there's no risk of multiple threads callingGetExceptionBreakpoint
then this might be overkill and checking the optional is sufficient and marginally more efficient.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks! I've removed the
if()
check and wrap the block of code that populatesexception_breakpoints
in a call_once so the callers ofPopulateExceptionBreakpoints
don't have to do that